MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050568409 · doi:10.1017/s1743921309031329

DRAO deep polarization study at 1.4 GHz

2008· article· en· W2050568409 on OpenAlexafffund
J. K. Grant, A. R. Taylor, J. M. Stil, R. Ricci, S. P. O’Sullivan, T. L. Landecker, R. Kothes, R. R. Ransom

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsPolarization (electrochemistry)AstrophysicsTelescopeStokes parametersFlux (metallurgy)Point sourceAstronomyRadio telescopeOpticsScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory synthesis telescope (DRAO-ST) was used to produce a deep polarization mosaic at 1.4 GHz to a noise level of 45 microJy beam−1 for both Stokes Q and U at 1′ resolution. The DRAO deep field covers 8.6 sq. degrees in polarization centered on the ELAIS N1 field. We identified over 1700 total intensity (Stokes I) radio sources of which 197 are linearly polarized down to a flux density level of 203 microJy. The fractional polarization of faint polarized sources are flat down to a polarized flux density of about 4 mJy, at which point the numbers increase, until the counts drop for polarized flux densities below 1 mJy. These faint polarized radio sources are mostly AGNs with luminosities below the traditional FRI/FRII boundary. Follow-up observations with the VLA show that the origin of the polarization of the radio sources down to a polarized flux of 1 mJy comes from both the lobes and central region of these objects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207